2003-05-27 TBLASMAN (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DAVID:Depending upon whether the dates are secured now for a place, like I said th before I think on the 28I would be calling David Forman first, Vicky Holt-Takamine secon and Angel Pilago last. If securing a place is a problem, I think, you know, theyÓre able to do any of those three days possibly, if we have problems with that. And before I pass this to Mikahala, I wanted to ask permission if in fact when we do, when I do put on these witness objections if we were to use like a PowerPoint as a demonstrative tool when I bring these witnesses on? IÓm not saying that we are. IÓm just saying that if I can arrange it, would there be any objections to that? GIFFIN:Hannah? SPRINGER:I have no objection. GIFFIN:Grant? TOGASHI:None. GIFFIN:None. DAVID:Mahalo. GIFFIN:Randy? VITOUSEK:I have no problem with the PowerPoint. I guess I do, I may have an issue relative to the proposed testimony from David Forman. I mean, David Forman is an attorney. And heÓs, weÓre being told that heÓs going to testify about law; and thatÓs usually not an appropriate subject for testimony in court. In other words, attorneys donÓt get on stand as witnesses and testify as to what the law is. ThatÓs something for the Hearings Officers to interpret. In other words, the law is the law, development law is the law; and the role of the Hearings Officers is to interpret the law and apply it to the facts. And usually in this type of proceeding, we donÓt have an attorney testifying as a witness as to what the law is and how it applies to the facts. ThatÓs usually the role of the party presenting the facts. In other words, testimony you testify as to facts, and then you argue how the existing body of law applies to those facts. You donÓt have an attorney testify as a witness as to how to apply the law to a set of facts. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:I think Lester Î. GIFFIN:Lester? 3